26 Jul 2009, 4:51 am
26 Jul 2009, 6:00 am
26 Jul 2009, 8:57 am
26 Jul 2009, 9:13 am
26 Jul 2009, 9:18 am
26 Jul 2009, 9:19 am
26 Jul 2009, 9:29 am
26 Jul 2009, 9:48 am
Or a university depending on a monastory?
(No, this time, I was kidding 
)
Anyway, congratulations for your Ph.d!
And the long travelling to India.
Hope you'll find a lot of nice people over there.
26 Jul 2009, 10:35 am
I hope to visit India one day. I heard Goa, and Jaipur are really beautiful places.
26 Jul 2009, 12:01 pm
zena4 wrote:
And, by curiosity (but if I'am too inquisitive, don't hesitate to tell me), are you doing your research in a university or in a monastery?
No you are not too inquisitive, lol
I like talking. I am working at the university, of course. But yes I am interested in religion; althugh my professional work is on physics.
What were you trying to imply by that question though? Were you trying to refer to my posting style as very monastery-like?
26 Jul 2009, 12:18 pm
26 Jul 2009, 12:41 pm
26 Jul 2009, 1:00 pm
I'm French and living in France.
I haven't travelled much but I know about different religions in the world and also science-fiction (quantum physics is more or less like science-fiction to me, even in French, sorry to say and I must admit ).
So I'm sorry but I won't be able to develop a good answer to your question.
Maybe you'll find by yourself in India 
I mean: about correlations, coïncidences, synchronicities and everything in whatever field (scientific and religious) you will look at.
26 Jul 2009, 1:04 pm
zena4 wrote:
I'm French and living in France.
I haven't travelled much but I know about different religions in the world and also science-fiction (quantum physics is more or less like science-fiction to me, even in French).
I haven't travelled much but I know about different religions in the world and also science-fiction (quantum physics is more or less like science-fiction to me, even in French).
So are you religious yourself?
Are you into science or more into arts?
zena4 wrote:
So I'm sorry but I won't be able to develop a good answer to your question.
Maybe you'll find by yourself in India
I mean: about correlations, coïncidences, synchronicities and everything in whatever field (scientific and religious) you will look at.
Maybe you'll find by yourself in India
I mean: about correlations, coïncidences, synchronicities and everything in whatever field (scientific and religious) you will look at.
Oh the question I was asking you was not on correlations, but rather why you felt what you felt: taht causal set was religious topic. Who knows perhaps that will inspire me to think of it in some other way.
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
26 Jul 2009, 1:12 pm
Roman wrote:
I am surprise you said the word "causal" sounds religious. To me it sounds quite the opposite. Back at the time I was an atheist (back in high school years) I used to appeal to the concept of cause and effect to refute God: my argument was that since everything in nature is "caused" by physical laws, there is no room for god to decide anything. I guess in causal set tehory by cause I mean this kind of causality, but may be you meant something else? I would be very interested to konw what you thought causal set tehory is -- since I am trying to come up with my own version of causal set theory, may be I can try to impliment.
By the way, my own version of causal set theory is already more in agreement with religion than standard one. I appleal to Einstein's concept of space-time where time is just one of the coordinates, so past doesn't "cause" the future, rather they both already present in different dimensions. The apparent causalities are not causalities at all, but rather "correlations" that are either allowed or forbidden. For example, consider two events:
1) At 1:35 PM, a stone is 2 miles in the air, moving downwards
2) At 1:36 PM, a stone is 3 miles in the air, moving upwards
The correlation of the above two events is forbidden. Of course, I have to slow down and take all possibilities into account. In particualr I have to say that no one pushed the stone up or things like that, but you got the point. So basically, the "allowed" behaviors of large objects, such as rocks, stars, etc. are too smiilar for us to distinguish, which is why it "feels" like there are physical laws governing them; but if we get down to scale of electrons that is no longer true, so the whole concept of apparent causality is destroyed.
According to my version of causal set theory, all events in the universe are connected to each other by links that are called "causal relations". But don't get me wrong, they are not TRULLY causal -- after all, like I said before time is really one more space coordinate and both future and past existed from the beginning. Rather, these links are simply some structure that determines which correlations are allowed and which are forbidden. So a lot more correlations are allowed between events that are not linked than between the events that are. Since it is correlation law, I can just as well say that future "causes" the past as past "causes" the future.
I believe the concept of "allowed" or "forbidden" correlations is more consistent with religion than the concept of causality -- after all, Old Testament is full of "allowed" and "forbidden" behavior of humans, so since it is the same God he can also come up with "allowed" and "forbidden" behavior of the universe. Also, the concept of "allowed" and "forbidden" leaves room for freedom of will since more than one behavior of either alive person, or the rest of the universe, is "allowed", so God can choose between different "allowed" universes to impliment his will OR he can allowe a person to "choose" between different behaviors that are allowed according to the physics of particles that s/he is made out of.
However, the above is my own re-formulation of causal set theory, not the standard one at all. According to standard causal set theory, there IS a cause and effect; in fact they elevate cause and effect to be the only fundamental structure of the universe. But since only 20 professors work on causal set theory worldwide, the politics of the field allows me not to stick to orthodoxy which is what I took advantage of to try to formulate my own version of the theory. Part of my motivation was to be able to encorporate quantum mechanics, a lot of which is inconsistent with strict causality.
But still, snce you didn't know what I just said, I am very much curious to find out why you thougth it was religious topic? May be I can use some of your perceptions to help my future re-interpretations. I kown that is quite possible.
By the way you mentioned your English is not that good. So what country are you from?
By the way, my own version of causal set theory is already more in agreement with religion than standard one. I appleal to Einstein's concept of space-time where time is just one of the coordinates, so past doesn't "cause" the future, rather they both already present in different dimensions. The apparent causalities are not causalities at all, but rather "correlations" that are either allowed or forbidden. For example, consider two events:
1) At 1:35 PM, a stone is 2 miles in the air, moving downwards
2) At 1:36 PM, a stone is 3 miles in the air, moving upwards
The correlation of the above two events is forbidden. Of course, I have to slow down and take all possibilities into account. In particualr I have to say that no one pushed the stone up or things like that, but you got the point. So basically, the "allowed" behaviors of large objects, such as rocks, stars, etc. are too smiilar for us to distinguish, which is why it "feels" like there are physical laws governing them; but if we get down to scale of electrons that is no longer true, so the whole concept of apparent causality is destroyed.
According to my version of causal set theory, all events in the universe are connected to each other by links that are called "causal relations". But don't get me wrong, they are not TRULLY causal -- after all, like I said before time is really one more space coordinate and both future and past existed from the beginning. Rather, these links are simply some structure that determines which correlations are allowed and which are forbidden. So a lot more correlations are allowed between events that are not linked than between the events that are. Since it is correlation law, I can just as well say that future "causes" the past as past "causes" the future.
I believe the concept of "allowed" or "forbidden" correlations is more consistent with religion than the concept of causality -- after all, Old Testament is full of "allowed" and "forbidden" behavior of humans, so since it is the same God he can also come up with "allowed" and "forbidden" behavior of the universe. Also, the concept of "allowed" and "forbidden" leaves room for freedom of will since more than one behavior of either alive person, or the rest of the universe, is "allowed", so God can choose between different "allowed" universes to impliment his will OR he can allowe a person to "choose" between different behaviors that are allowed according to the physics of particles that s/he is made out of.
However, the above is my own re-formulation of causal set theory, not the standard one at all. According to standard causal set theory, there IS a cause and effect; in fact they elevate cause and effect to be the only fundamental structure of the universe. But since only 20 professors work on causal set theory worldwide, the politics of the field allows me not to stick to orthodoxy which is what I took advantage of to try to formulate my own version of the theory. Part of my motivation was to be able to encorporate quantum mechanics, a lot of which is inconsistent with strict causality.
But still, snce you didn't know what I just said, I am very much curious to find out why you thougth it was religious topic? May be I can use some of your perceptions to help my future re-interpretations. I kown that is quite possible.
By the way you mentioned your English is not that good. So what country are you from?
People who live on earth should not throw stones
topic
I am reading a book by Leonard Susskind entitled The Black Hole War and in this book he talks about the concept of causality at the Quantum level as meaningless. Typical average aspie reading.
I am still reading and rereading it, in order to understand. Thank goodness I am visual. The average nonautistic person with only high school science could not understand the concepts he discusses. This book, though, would be too easy for you, at your level.
26 Jul 2009, 1:17 pm
